Once one accepts mutations are purely random, it's clear there are two disparate sides to evolution with no connection between them atall. One is meaningless but free; the other is powerful and goal-oriented. To confuse the two is to be in a parallel world where fact and fiction intermingle.
Genes are mutable which is why there is complete freedom of choice when the body is impelled to make a change to any of its functions. By 'function' meaning something thatbexhibits goal-oriented behaviour.
One example happened when female synapsids - ancestors of mammals - who laid parchment-shelled eggs that lost water to the surroundings, changed the function of a hair-follicle to a lactating gland that started nourishing the thin shells.
The milk that developed over time incorporated nutrient compounds and anti-bacterial agents and eventually came to replace egg-yolk.
In terms of language (story) and semantics, the females of circa 300 million years ago were developing teats and eventually breasts in order to nurture their young. The birth of live young (instead of eggs) is a mammalian trait that enables long gestation and close bonds.
The language has a feminine angle, an ancestral origin myth. In order for this goal-oriented behaviour to be chosen, there has to be the absence of goal-oriented behaviour in the genes. One one side there is goal-oriented behaviour, on the other there is mutability (random change.)
Unless one realises there is a two-sided process, the confusion is that DNA contains a language that can be understood and have semantics (meaning.) No, the language is only there to be understood by RNA transcriptase, it has no meaning beyond that.
The body is balanced and proportionate, desirable to a mate with the mechanical power to achieve results. That is what meaning means! The mechanical efforts function in psychic rapport through connection to spine and cerebellum - breath, speech, blood, sight. That is what behaviour is.
The language (story) of behaviour is the language of evolution, and it is nothing to do with DNA. The fallacy is that because DNA can be understood it has meaning (as a language.)
It's meaningless because only the body has the behaviour because behaviour comes from the mechanisms of balance and proportion.
Force and purpose are one side; mutability and meaninglessness are the other. Where there is force and purpose there is going to be meaning in terms of behaviour. Abuse - yelling at a kid; obscenity, absurdity, humour. There is going to be social-control. There are going to be differences. There is going to be messiness and germs.
All that can be narrated by language. But the neutralising of language (see PM1) leads to the neutralising of meaning. Meaningless acts can recur. A neutral language has no meaning; it can only be understood as a type of confusion, a mutability of functions.
To avoid confusion, terms like purpose and destiny (motherhood) have to be used to impose semantics on a seemingly meaningless order (of the West.)
